- 16 -
Petitioner’s “Application for Pension Benefit” identifies him as
the plan participant and distinguishes between petitioner as the
“participant” and Mrs. Barkley as his “spouse”. Petitioner has
offered no evidence that Mrs. Barkley was considered a
participant under the terms of the plan.
Petitioner’s reliance on sections 417(f)(1) and 418D(e) to
support his argument that Mrs. Barkley was a participant is
misplaced. Section 417(f)(1) defines the term “vested
participant” for purposes of sections 417 and 401(a)(11) as “any
participant who has a nonforfeitable right (within the meaning of
section 411(a)) to any portion of such participant’s accrued
benefit” but does not define the term “participant”. Section
411(a) sets forth the various requirements by which an employee’s
retirement benefit becomes nonforfeitable. The definition of
“inactive participant” contained in section 418D(e) refers to a
person not in covered service under a plan who is in pay status
under the plan or who has a nonforfeitable right to plan
benefits. The definition is relevant only for purposes of
section 418D, which is completely inapplicable to this case.
Petitioner has taken these provisions out of context, and they do
not support his contention that Mrs. Barkley was a participant in
the plan. We conclude, therefore, that Mrs. Barkley was not an
employee of Pacific Bell or a participant in the plan.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011